Murray's had it so tough, every slam final it's either Roger or Novak.. Roger, arguably the best player ever and Novak, arguably the best hard-court point constructor ever.

Virtually every time he had reached a final in previous year's he's also had to get one of the top 4 in the semi finals, ofcourse that changed this year but once again a massive feet.

To sum it up I don't think anyone can ever say Andy Murray didn't deserve this slam, no lucky draws, injuries to top player's or anything. He battled and he battled and that inner strength is finally there with him now.

I was a little disappointed with his lack of a celebration, I feel he was too emotionally drained to celebrate to the level he probably felt like. The feeling was jus relief, massive weight off his shoulders now. Expect Novak and Andy to dominate the hardcourt slams now.

This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.

I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.

I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

Click to expand...

English comprehension skills?

They were not wins in the finals, that's what the thread is about, your post therefore is insignificant, irrelevant, pointless, uneeded, NOT REQUIRED, thanks.

This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.

I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

Click to expand...

And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

Click to expand...

He jus wanted to point out something irrelevant even though he clearly gets the idea of why I am glorifying such a feet.

I just finished watching the replay, and while it was great (because the competitors were equally matched) I definitely think it plays against those pushing for labeling this as the golden era.

Federer from 2004-2007 would have won that like 6-1, 6-3, 6-2. He would have made either of those guys look like fools.

Click to expand...

Such waffle with unproven and very unfounded assertions.

Roger Federer of 2004-2007 would have done bla bla bla ...

Fact is he had Roddick, an ageing Agassi and Hewitt in slam finals. When he met someone with real talent and in their peak, Safin, he came up short. Not knocking Federer, but don't demean Murray and Djokovic's performance today with subjective remarks based on the basis Federer played really pretty tennis during 2004-2007 and his opponents lacked the offensive, defensive skills to not look like they were being tormented and toyed with.

They were not wins in the finals, that's what the thread is about, your post therefore is insignificant, irrelevant, pointless, uneeded, NOT REQUIRED, thanks.

Click to expand...

I know that they were not in finals(as I already said,so your English comprehension skills don't seem to be up to task yourself),but they still had to beat a multiple slam champ and the GOAT to even make the final at their first slam win. That counts for a lot no matter if you like it or not,Mr. Smart*ss.

Oh,and Nadal was barely even 19 when he won his first slam by having to beat Fed to do so. Keep pretending that doesn't mean anything if you like,but you're not very convincing while you have your head stuck in the sand.

I know that they were not in finals(as I already said,so your English comprehension skills don't seem to be up to task yourself),but they still had to beat a multiple slam champ and the GOAT to even make the final at their first slam win. That counts for a lot no matter if you like it or not,Mr. Smart*ss.

Click to expand...

That is an insignificant point! It matters not! If that actually mattered, would I have made this thread? It does not even come within the same radar as "still had to beat them in the semi finals" .. no one gets nervous in the semi finals, to beat the best you have to play YOUR BEST and to play your best UNDER PRESSURE, where nerves are jangling is not easy.

It counts for ******** in relation to this thread, absolute ********. The topic was BASED on WHO THEY HAVE BEATEN IN THE FINAL, IN THE FINAL, YES THE ACTUAL FINAL. You come in and make annoying remark about how it is not true and then say that is why? It is true. It's a fact. Semi final opponents do not stop it from being a fact and the statistic I was highlighting has no relevance to your pointless point which did not need to be said.

That is an insignificant point! It matters not! If that actually mattered, would I have made this thread? It does not even come within the same radar as "still had to beat them in the semi finals" .. no one gets nervous in the semi finals, to beat the best you have to play YOUR BEST and to play your best UNDER PRESSURE, where nerves are jangling is not easy.

It counts for ******** in relation to this thread, absolute ********. The topic was BASED on WHO THEY HAVE BEATEN IN THE FINAL, IN THE FINAL, YES THE ACTUAL FINAL. You come in and make annoying remark about how it is not true and then say that is why? It is true. It's a fact. Semi final opponents do not stop it from being a fact and the statistic I was highlighting has no relevance to your pointless point which did not need to be made.

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that you were actually wrong in saying that they didn't have to beat a slam winner to win their first slam because they did,and the GOAT at that. I know you were talking about in finals,but you were still fundamentally wrong,which is all I was trying to say. You immediately went on the attack and lost your sh*t over what I said. I think you should calm down before you open a vein.

Oh,and Nadal was barely even 19 when he won his first slam by having to beat Fed to do so. Keep pretending that doesn't mean anything if you like,but you're not very convincing while you have your head stuck in the sand.

Click to expand...

Again, you are bringing up COMPLETELY irrelevant feets to this specific topic which is not about anything but the bloody player's who when winning their first Grandslam beat in the final.

I don't know how to break this down for you, I actually don't think it matters much @ all as its quite evident you're a girl with a huge crush on Nadal and hate to see him perhaps forgotten about in the midst of all this commotion about someone new.

Fact is he had Roddick, an ageing Agassi and Hewitt in slam finals. When he met someone with real talent and in their peak, Safin, he came up short. Not knocking Federer, but don't demean Murray and Djokovic's performance today with subjective remarks based on the basis Federer played really pretty tennis during 2004-2007 and his opponents lacked the offensive, defensive skills to not look like they were being tormented and toyed with.

I was pointing out that you were actually wrong in saying that they didn't have to beat a slam winner to win their first slam because they did,and the GOAT at that. I know you were talking about in finals,but you were still fundamentally wrong,which is all I was trying to say. You immediately went on the attack and lost your sh*t over what I said. I think you should calm down before you open a vein.

Click to expand...

I SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BEAT A SLAM WINNER IN THE FINAL, IN THE FINAL, I WAS NOT WRONG, I WAS TALKING IN REGARD TO THE BLOODY FLIPPING FINAL.

*SLAMS HEAD AGAINST MONITOR SCREEN REPEATEDLY* FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL! FINALLLLL!!!

Where are these people from?

I wasn't wrong read, I was articulate with my post and title, anyone with half a brain would know I was refering to the final alone, everyone obviously knows what you have pointed out and it has no single relevance to anything.

Again, you are bringing up COMPLETELY irrelevant feets to this specific topic which is not about anything but the bloody player's who when winning their first Grandslam beat in the final.

I don't know how to break this down for you, I actually don't think it matters much @ all as its quite evident you're a girl with a huge crush on Nadal and hate to see him perhaps forgotten about in the midst of all this commotion about someone new.

Click to expand...

Omg,this is too funny. :lol: Newsflash: I WAS ROOTING FOR ANDY TO WIN. I don't really care if you think Nadal is "forgotten" in the midst about someone new(Andy isn't new anyway),because that's just pure bs. I was just pointing out that were not entirely accurate with what you said. Have you opened that vein yet? Lol.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong about anything as my point of discussion and what I rate so heavily is the fact he had to beat them in the final, which as I have expained with many reasons to that you have not even bothered attempting to contest, IS BLOODY HARD.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong about anything as my point of discussion and what I rate so heavily is the fact they had to beat them in the final, which as I have expained with many reasons to that you have not even bothered attempting to contest, IS BLOODY HARD.

Click to expand...

Before getting so aggressive, please do note that it's 'FEAT' and not 'FEET'. I thought it was a typo in the first post but saw that you had 'mis-spelt' it a number of times.

Before getting so aggressive, please do note that it's 'FEAT' and not 'FEET'. I thought it was a typo in the first post but saw that you had 'mis-spelt' it a number of times.

Click to expand...

Another insignificant and irrelevant post made in the thread, contributing nothing to the discussion @ hand.

Can we hear from some people that would actually like to discuss the point I've made in my opening post, rather than howmany pubic hairs Nadal had when he broke onto the tour and my spelling of the odd word being wrong?

This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.

I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

Click to expand...

Yup and Federer had to beat Roddick in the semis of his first GS win as well

Another insignificant and irrelevant post made in the thread, contributing nothing to the discussion @ hand.

Can we hear from some people that would actually like to discuss the point I've made in my opening post, rather than howmany pubic hairs Nadal had when he broke onto the tour and my spelling of the odd word being wrong?

Click to expand...

That wouldn't be possible as you are convinced that you are correct and dismiss all other points of view. Hence, a 'discussion' with you on this topic is not possible.

That wouldn't be possible as you are convinced that you are correct and dismiss all other points of view. Hence, a 'discussion' with you on this topic is not possible.

Click to expand...

I am not dismissing anyone's views.

That chick has brought up a point completely unattached from the feat I am basing this thread on.

Djokovic, Federer and Nadal didn't beat a Grandslam champion in a final to win their first Grandslam. Whether or not they beat one in the semi final is completely irrelevant to the actual statistic. They may very well have done had they had the opportunity, but I can assure you it is a much harder achievement to win your first slam against an already slam champion, so that alone deserves a mention and a lot of credit. All people can do however is undermine it with if buts and whatevers.

You can't argue with the fact I made in the opening post, bringing up a separate fact doesn't stop my fact from being fact. So why bring it up? And when doing so why so it is A) no true and B) fundamentally wrong?

That chick has brought up a point completely unattached from the feat I am basing this thread on.

Djokovic, Federer and Nadal didn't beat a Grandslam champion in a final to win their first Grandslam. Whether or not they beat one in the semi final is completely irrelevant to the actual statistic. They may very well have done, but I can assure you it is a much harder achievement to win your first slam against an already slam champion.

You can't argue with the fact I made in the opening post, bringing up a separate fact doesn't stop my fact from being fact. So why bring it up? And when doing so why so it is A) no true and B) fundamentally wrong?

Let's have some intelligent people post.

Click to expand...

Nice. You dismiss me because I am female. That comment along with your cray cray outbursts in this thread prove a lot to me about the type of person you are. If that vein hasn't burst yet,then it is most certainly about to. Lol.

Nice. You dismiss me because I am female. That comment along with your cray cray outbursts in this thread prove a lot to me about the type of person you are. If that vein hasn't burst yet,then it is most certainly about to. Lol.

Nice. You dismiss me because I am female. That comment along with your cray cray outbursts in this thread prove a lot to me about the type of person you are. If that vein hasn't burst yet,then it is most certainly about to. Lol.

Click to expand...

Certainly not.

Again, you've yourself look really stupid.

Initially had you down as a guy, for then you had to set me straight on.

So you see I dismissed your stupidity way before you told me you were female and it was on the basis you were actually not able to discuss or debate anything in regard to once again, I know I keep using this word, the "FACT" I brought up in the opening post.

You said it was not true and fundamentally wrong. Yet the fact it is true can't make it fundamentally anything but right. If your argument is that there is no difference between beating a Grandslam champion in a final and a semi final then you are having a laugh.

Initially had you down as a guy, for then you had to set me straight on.

So you see I dismissed your stupidity way before you told me you were female and it was on the basis you were actually not able to discuss or debate anything in regard to once again, I know I keep using this word, the "FACT" I brought up in the opening post.

You said it was not true and fundamentally wrong. Yet the fact it is true can't make it fundamentally anything but right. If your argument is that there is no difference between beating a Grandslam champion in a final and a semi final then you are having a laugh.

Initially had you down as a guy, for then you had to set me straight on.

So you see I dismissed your stupidity way before you told me you were female and it was on the basis you were actually not able to discuss or debate anything in regard to once again, I know I keep using this word, the "FACT" I brought up in the opening post.

You said it was not true and fundamentally wrong. Yet the fact it is true can't make it fundamentally anything but right. If your argument is that there is no difference between beating a Grandslam champion in a final and a semi final then you are having a laugh.

I've said my peace with you, fact you are resorting to me refering to you in slang term for a female and making a full blown five course meal of it shows you know you were wrong in bringing up such a pointless thing.

I'll wait for someone with an actual point on the topic @ hand before replying again now.

PS: Chick is the same as calling a bloke a dude, grow up with your PC nonsense.

And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

Click to expand...

I missed this guys post, he summed it up beautifully and the reason for this thread stems around the part in bold.

I missed this guys post, he summed it up beautifully and the reason for this thread stems around the part in bold.

Click to expand...

Ah. Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams, but they were in the semis of the '08 US Open and the quarters of the 2010 Australian Open. Didn't you say beating Grand Slam champions in rounds before the final doesn't matter much?:?

Ah. Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams, but they were in the semis of the '08 US Open and the quarters of the 2010 Australian Open. Didn't you say beating Grand Slam champions in rounds before the final doesn't matter much?:?

And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

See the text in bold, the part I bolded, from his post? I bolded it, yes? You see that? That's what I was plauditing, not anything to do with what he said in relation to Murray having to beat Nadal in semi finals or any of that ****.

Last time of breaking everything down for you. English comprehension skills man and you're a writer.

See the text in bold, the part I bolded, from his post? I bolded it, yes? You see that? That's what I was plauditing, not anything to do with what he said in relation to Murray having to beat Nadal in semi finals or any of that ****.

Last time of breaking everything down for you. English comprehension skills man and you're a writer.

Click to expand...

Wow. So offensive, relax. Everyone doesn't have to agree with everything you say. And yeah, I'm a writer, but I'm always looking to improve, so thanks for that, will consider it